The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1887-10-28
q KIMBALL GRAPHIC,
BY c. r. TlNAN.
HIGH LICENSE VS. PROHIBITION
SOME POPULAR PALACES.

Prohibition is wrong in principle. and
in practice it is worse than failure. 1t is
an arrantable infringement upon per
sonal liberty. That one man abuses a
thing OF doubtful utility, gives no right
to forbid the use of it to another" is a
favorite argument put forth by the anti.
prohibitionists-more so. possibly, than
any other. This, Notwithstanding the
fact, that the . personal liberty" part of
the temperance question has been pretty
well exploded. If not it should be.
There is nothing in the pfsgent prohibit
bition movement that in anyway men
aces the right of any individual to eat
and drink whatever he sees fit and to the
extent of his desire. Prohibition-so
called-deals with the seller not the con-
sumner. Possibly it were better were
this not SO to the extent that it is, hut it
is the facts of the case, nevertheless. 1t
has required some bitter experience in
America to enable men to distinguish the
difference between constitutional liberty
and individual license. Personal liberty
as guaranteed by the constitution means
al we understand 1.-THE broadest toll
cradle degree of individual freedom, the
right to go and come at will; to rise and
retire at pleasure; to dance, laugh and
sing; to eat, drink and be merry; the per-
feet freedom of contract; complete free
dom of capital and labor; the right to en-
gage in any lawful pursuit, and the right
to dine on roast beef or potatoes, and to
drink water, wine, whisky or beer. But
inasmuch as the rights of every indiYid-
pal ends where the rights of some other
individual begins he has no higher claim
to cnroach upon the public right than
tie public have to invade his personal
liberty. There is always a limit to per-
sonal liberty. Tie general public have
some rights which the individual is
bound to respect. The right to drink
beer or wine carries with it the incident
al right to buy these things and this prin-
cipal is fully recognized by the local
option law which the people of the sew
eral counties in Dakota have the privilege
of adopting. There is nothing in this
law forbidding any individual from buy
ing any reasonable quantity of beer,
wine or liquor for his own use. As long
as he has a right to obtain these things
what more can he ask so far as his per.
sonal liberty is concerned? If he must
drink it does not follow that the general
public is bound to keep open q hundred
places on the principal streets where his
appetite which is a curse to him may be
fostered and encouraged in others.
But" says the moderate drinker, who
never becomes intoxicated, my rights
must not be restricted hx the same
bounds that are set to the habitual drunk,
ard" 1t lisa common mistake to at,
tempt to determine the general effect OF
q particular line of conduct by its infu.
cnce upon the more intelligent classes OF
a community. No process could be
more crroneeas: Is a matter of fact in.
%iluences must be Judged by their opera.
tions upon the weaker and more sus.
ccptiblc factors of society. Where a nod
will do for the educated man absolute
command is necessary for an ignorant
one. Decisive measures arc necessar,
sometimes to good government. Mora
s~uasion is ineffective with debascd or
weakened intcllects. The strong arm Of
the law must be felt in Its aggressive
force. Its operations should not be
stayed by any sentimental considera
tons arising out Of Il pcrvcrsion of tht
spirit of the law. The real law tina
must control communities is the obviou.
intent. not the accidental lettef. VIVA
words mean is of more consequence thar
what they apparently say. The framerl
of the constitution certainly did not in
tend to include the keeping open of +,
public resort which is debasing and de
moralizing upon society under the heat
Of personal liberty. If the public, toe
confident of its security, has tolerated
abuses it did not fear, the factions so in
dulged should not confound their indul
gcIces with the vested rights of tn,
American citizen.
***
1t is the favorite and cver-repeatet
argument of the prohib;tionist that hi
fight against rum is analogous to the
against slavery. He faces the discour
aging figures of the elections With thu
comforting declaration that they are fal
more cheering than those which the free
soil party looked upon for years. Eye
did not the free soil party finally tri
umph?" says the prohip.,ionist, and ther
he proceeds to build upon this precedent
the certain of victory for the cause hi
has at heart. However satisfactory sucl
q conclusion may be to many, it doe:
not appear upon critical examination te
be a correct one. Slavery was sectional